No Escape—Only Rescue

Parashat Vayeshev: Genesis 37:1-40:23
Chaim Dauermann, Simchat Yisrael, West Haven, CT

Parashat Vayeshev represents a turning point in the Genesis narrative, when the focus shifts to the story of one man, and stays there for the rest of the book. The last four parashiot of Genesis tell the story of Joseph, how he came to be in Egypt, and how his experiences and decisions ultimately led to all of Abraham’s descendants living in Goshen, setting the stage for the rest of the Torah narrative. As in any epic story, there are bit players who seem to support the action rather than drive it. Reuben’s role in the narrative is a minor one, comprising but a few lines. While he may seem to take a back seat to the more significant roles of Joseph, Benjamin, and Judah, what he does in this story (and, ultimately, what he doesn’t do) raises interesting questions.

Genesis 37 tells the story of Joseph’s unfortunate fate at the hands of his brothers. Driven to jealousy over Joseph’s favored status with their father, and angered over his prophetic dreams which they’ve interpreted to be boastful, Jacob’s sons conspire to kill Joseph. It is then that Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, intervenes.

But when Reuben heard it, he rescued him out of their hands, saying, “Let us not take his life.” And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him”—that he might rescue him out of their hand to restore him to his father. (Gen 37:21–22)

His motives seem on the surface to be pure, motivated by care for his brother and love for his father, for it was known that Joseph was the most favored among his sons. But a careful reading of the surrounding text may lead one to question whether Reuben’s motivations may have had a more selfish nature. In Genesis 35:22, we read: “While Israel lived in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine. And Israel heard of it.” This is a deed that cannot come without consequence, but it is not addressed directly until Genesis 49, when Jacob withholds preeminence from Reuben, saying, “Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father’s bed; then you defiled it” (49:4). There are issues at play here that go far beyond personal affront. Reuben’s actions with Bilhah directly challenged his father’s position and authority, and the consequences of those actions threatened the benefits that Reuben expected as the firstborn of the family.

After Joseph is thrown into the pit, Reuben leaves the scene. His brother, Judah, leads the others in lifting Joseph out of the pit and selling him to Midianite merchants. When Reuben later returns to the pit only to find it empty, he becomes distraught and tears his clothes in mourning and grief. But for whom does he mourn? He goes to find his brothers, and says, “The boy is gone, and I, where shall I go?” (37:30). It seems that even in his grief, his own fate remained very much on his mind. Between the time of his transgression with Bilhah and his father’s final blessing, Reuben was left to wrestle with the impact of his actions.

Jewish tradition wrestles with Reuben’s actions right along with him. The Talmud (Shabbat 55b) records the sages discussing Reuben’s sin and culpability. Some struggle with reconciling the image of Reuben as a righteous person with the sin he has committed. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

Is it possible that his descendants are destined to stand on Mount Eival and say: “Cursed be he that lies with his father’s wife; because he uncovers his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, amen” (Deuteronomy 27:20), and this sin will come to be performed by him? Is it conceivable that the members of a tribe would curse their ancestor? How then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine”? It is understood as follows: He protested the affront to his mother. He said: If my mother’s sister Rachel was a rival to my mother, will my mother’s sister’s concubine be a rival to my mother? He immediately stood and rearranged her bed so that Jacob would enter Leah’s tent.

This text goes on to report further debate around sleeping arrangements, and the relative sinfulness of the moving of beds. The biblical text itself, however, clearly indicates adultery, and the generational consequences that Reuben cannot escape speak to this being the case. But the instinct of the sages here, in reframing Reuben’s behavior as a lesser transgression related to the positioning of beds, ought to be understandable to any of us. Indeed, as unfair as it may seem for the standing of Reuben’s descendants to be marred by his transgression, as unjust as it might strike us that God would think to “visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,” or as reprehensible as we might believe it to be that the consequences of sin could be visited on all of creation on account of one sinful forefather (Rom 5:12), we should not ignore how these scenarios parallel our modern concerns: Throughout the western world, countries are grappling with the question of whether the citizens of today should pay for the wrongs committed by their forebears. Here in the States, this conversation has been centered on the question of slavery for as long as I can remember. Yet it is hard for many of us to grapple with this issue when we know our country to be a good one.

Who can blame the rabbis for rearranging Reuben’s furniture? The problem of sin, after all, has to be dealt with somehow, and this can be all the more difficult when the sin seems notably out of character. But we can be thankful that there is another way of looking at this matter:

Reuben’s furtive rescue plan was doomed to fail from the start, for returning Joseph to his father would not have covered up his earlier sin. Moreover, as we learn later in the story, had Joseph not ended up in Egypt, Israel and his sons may have starved in the great famine that was to come. The story of Joseph has long been seen as a type—a parallel, prophetic representation—of the Messiah, Yeshua. Joseph saved his family, and the entire nation that would rise up from them afterwards, but he could not repair the generational consequences that Reuben brought upon himself. But just as we can look to Joseph’s story and his character for shadows of the Messiah to come, we have Messiah Yeshua to look to when it comes to repairing the impact and the legacy of sin.

Ultimately, what lies at the heart of this whole discussion is rescue. Rescue for Joseph from the pit. Rescue for Reuben from his transgression. Rescue for Jacob and his household from a famine. And rescue for us all, from our broken human state. In thinking of Reuben’s situation, and the sages’ speculations about the positioning of beds, I am reminded of the popular saying about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Rearranging furniture can have utility for a time, but on a sinking ship, rescue is the only fruitful long-term plan.